• Emergency measures to take in the event of a nanomaterial spill or release.

OSHA also recommends using its on-site consultation services for employers attempting to address potential exposure to nanomaterials in the workplace and states that “On-site consultation services are separate from enforcement and do not result in penalties or citations.”

Just a reminder that the extended comment period for EPA’s proposed rule regarding reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain nanoscale materials closes August 5, 2015. Readers can find a copy of the proposed rule here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0572-0001…

Our colleagues on our sister blogsite Federal Securities Law Blog have been tracking new and updated SEC regulations that could impact on the businesses of our readers. The articles in their most recent eBook SEC Updates: Keeping Ahead of the Regulatory Curve (which you can download here ) discuss three important SEC regulatory changes: compensation committee rules, conflict minerals reporting and whether companies that use social media to communicate with investors are complying with Regulation Fair Disclosure. …

While it may not be able to prevent vandalism, the Nanoforart project has taken on the task of appling nanotechnology to preserving and conserving works of art:

The main objective of the NANOFORART proposal is the development and experimentation of new nano-materials and responsive systems for the conservation and preservation of movable and immovable artworks.

While the progress in material science has generated sophisticated nanostructured materials, conservation of cultural heritage is still mainly based on traditional methods and conventional materials that often lack the necessary compatibility with the original artworks and a durable performance in responding to the changes of natural environment and man-made activities.

The main challenge of NANOFORART is the combination of sophisticated functional materials arising from the recent developments in nano-science/technology with innovative techniques in the restoration and preventive conservation of works of art, with unprecedented efficiency.

An earlier posting on this site discussed the use of nanomaterials to preserve and conserve artifacts found at archealogical excavation sites, the use of such nanomaterials to preserve works of …

With significant changes to law governing how the U.S. grants patents taking effect next month, Porter Wright recommends that all clients consider filing any contemplated patent applications by March 15. This includes filing non-provisional patent applications, and in some cases Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) patent applications, that are based upon any provisional or non-U.S. patent application filed since March 2012. Though there are some exceptions to this advice, waiting until after March 15 may be problematic.

In brief: For patent applications having any claim with an effective filing date after March 15, it will no longer be possible to overcome prior art by showing an earlier date of invention. Thus, the prior art for purposes of patentability will include: 1) third-party public disclosures of any kind, anywhere in the world, prior to your effective filing date; and 2) issued U.S. patents and published U.S. or PCT patent applications that were effectively filed before your effective filing date. In addition to not being able to "swear behind" a prior art reference by proving an earlier date of invention, the prior art date for patents and published patent applications may be as much as 18 months earlier than under current law because of foreign priority claims.

It is also important to note that inventors will not lose the benefit of any earlier provisional or non-U.S. patent application should they wait until after March 15 to file. Any claims that are adequately supported in the earlier filing will be entitled to that earlier filing …

Along with a new committee chairperson, the subcommittees have also gotten new chairs. The Subcommittee on Research and Education, which "has legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative authority on all matters relating to science policy and science education including: . . . research, development, and demonstration relating to nanoscience, nanoengineering, and nanotechnology", is now chaired by Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN-8th). Rep. Bucshon, first elected in the 2010 midterm elections, has not sponsored or co-sponsored much legislation and his positions on nanotechnology and nanoindustry are as yet unknown.

Legislation affecting either nanoindustry or the larger nanotech community has yet to be introduced in either the House or the Senate; such legislation may benefit from having Rep. Smith as Committee Chairperson.…

has initiated an evaluation of the scientific data on silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) to ascertain the potential health risks to workers and to identify gaps in knowledge so that appropriate laboratory and field research studies can be conducted. . . .

. . . gathering data to determine whether a health risk to workers may exist from exposure to AgNPs and if specific risk management guidance is needed to prevent exposure. . . .

Examples of requested information include the following: (1) Identification of industries or occupations in which exposures to AgNPs may occur. (2) Trends in the production and use of AgNPs. (3) Description of work tasks and scenarios with a potential for exposure to AgNPs. (4) Workplace exposure measurement data in various types of industries and jobs. (5) Case reports or other health information demonstrating potential health effects in workers exposed to AgNPs. (6) Research findings from in vitro and …

It’s that time of year – crowded shopping centers, festive gatherings, and time with family both near and far.

For employers the holidays create increased risk of employer liability – which may result in legal problems for those that are unprepared. Members of our Labor and Employment practice publish the Employer Law Report, which today posted a timely eBook compiling the top five holiday headaches for employers. As many may find the topic of interest, we wanted to take a moment and share it with our readers as well.

The ebook complies the following posts:

· Avoiding Holiday Party Liability When the Office Santa Tries to Teach His Employees a Few"Reindeer Games"

As engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) become increasingly common in consumer products and the environment, concern over their possible effects on human health also rises. There is concern over the possible penetration of human skin by ENPs. "However, the evidence whether nanoparticles can infiltrate into underlying tissues is conflicting . . . clarification of the issue is essential. . .."

Following exposure to ENPs, the skin samples were examined using a laser scanning confocal microscope. The reported results indicate that ENPs did not fully penetrate the skin, but only penetrated where a crease or a crack in the skin was present.

The authors note and warn about the limited nature of their research:

It should be emphasised that this research has clearly not been able to make a systematic evaluation of nanoparticle disposition on the skin for the entire spectrum of particle properties, including shape and charge. . . .the observations and their analysis cannot explain, with any degree of …

In a notice that appeared in last Thursday’s Federal Register, the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), announced that it would be hosting a webinar on Nano.gov on Thursday 09/20/2012, from 12:15 until 1PM. " NNCO is seeking public comment and recommendations on potential updates to, improvements on, and opportunities for public engagement through Nano.gov."

The webinar will consist of two parts. Part 1, the first 20 minutes of the webinar, will be spent on short presentations by the moderator and four panelists:

Moderator:
Marlowe Epstein-Newman, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO)—Marlowe is the Communications Director at NNCO and was the Project Manager for the first Nano.gov redesign in 2011. She manages the content on Nano.gov as well as the NNI’s social media presence.

Panelists:
Carl Batt, Cornell University—Carl is a Food Science professor with ties to National Science Foundation as a regularly consulted expert. Carl recently collaborated with the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network and Walt Disney World to create a permanent nanotechnology exhibit at Epcot Center.

Joshua A, Chamot, National Science Foundation (NSF)—Josh is a public affairs specialist in NSF’s Office of Legislative and Public Affairs. As a seasoned public affairs professional, he provides a unique perspective on media, public relations, and outreach tactics from a Federal Government perspective. Josh works in a variety of media to bring science stories to the public.

(Mr. CULBERSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Speaker, I have the singular privilege of representing Rice University, and I join my colleagues from Houston in recognizing and congratulating them on their 100th anniversary this year.

Rice has consistently been ranked as one of the Nation’s greatest universities and recognized by U.S. News & World Report as among the Nation’s top 20 universities. And they’ve consistently ranked in the top 50 universities in the world.

Rice University researchers are pioneers in a broad spectrum of fields, including space, energy, and my personal passion, nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is an absolute game-changer, revolutionizing everything that we will touch and see in the 21st century. Rice University is the birthplace of nanotechnology research.

Nanotechnology holds incredible potential for everything from curing cancer to improving the storage and transmission of electricity and moving electricity in ways …

Several studies of possible toxic effects of quantum dots on humans have been done using cell cultures in petri dishes or rodents, usually white lab rats. But lab rats are related to humans only in that both are mammals.

The authors report that the rhesus monkeys did not exhibit any ill effects from the injections:

A complete blood count (cbc) was performed at regular intervals and the results did not suggest any acute toxicity.

After 90 days, the study did find that quantum dots had accumulated in the liver, spleen, and kidneys and in lesser amounts in the heart, lungs, and other organs. Examinations of tissues from these organs found no abnormalities.

In conclusion, rhesus macaques intravenously injected with ~ 25 mg of a cadmium based quantum dot formulation survived without any evidence of toxicity. All measured biochemical markers were in the normal range. . . .However, given the persistence of elevated cadmium and selenium levels in …

As nanoparticles become more commonly used in everyday products it becomes increasingly important to understand " nanoparticle aggregation in the aqueous environment . . . for assessing the fate, transport and toxicity of nanomaterials". In an effort to increase the body of scientific knowledge in this area, Dongxu Zhou, Samuel W. Bennett, and Arturo A. Keller, all of the University of California Santa Barbara Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, in an article published on the PLOS One website "report for the first time . . . temperature variations can cause either agglomeration or disagglomeration . . . depending on the heating and cooling paths. This finding is very relevant . . . , since it indicates that ambient temperature change, constantly occurring in open waters, can alter nanoparticle mobility." Following studies cited in the article’s references, the authors define aggregates as "particle clusters bound by irreversible chemical bonds", while agglomerates are "clusters" held together by weak physical interactions. " Once released in the environment, nanoparticles will very likely exist as agglomerated aggregates, i.e. aggregate clusters that have weaker bonds between them. "

In experiments on clusters of three types of metallic oxides – titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and cerium oxide – lead the authors to conclude

. . . that in open water these soft (weakly bonded) agglomerates can be disagglomerated by common environmental stimuli, such as exposure to sunlight or an increase in temperature from diurnal variations. Although not evaluated, it is likely that mechanical shocks may also …

Prior to adjourning for the Memorial Say recess, the Senate, on 05/24/2012, by a vote of 96-1, passed S. 3187, the "Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act", " To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the user-fee programs for prescription drugs and medical devices, to establish user-fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilars, and for other purposes", after previously adopting an amendment in the nature of a substitute- an amendment in the nature of a substitute strips all of the language of a bill following the enacting clause and replaces it with new language – offered by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Included as part of the language of the amendment was Title XI – Other Provisions, Subtitle C- Misc. Provisions, Section 1133, "Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Program":

SEC. 1133. NANOTECHNOLOGY REGULATORY SCIENCE PROGRAM.

(a) In General- Chapter X (21 U.S.C. 391 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 1013. NANOTECHNOLOGY REGULATORY SCIENCE PROGRAM.

`(a) In General- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, the Secretary, in consultation as appropriate with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall establish within the Food and Drug Administration a Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Program (referred to in this section as the `program’) to enhance scientific knowledge regarding nanomaterials included or intended for inclusion in products regulated under this Act or other statutes administered by the Food and Drug Administration, to address

The possible presence of nanoparticles in food has, for the last few years, been a controversial topic, focusing usually on the possible toxic effects of manufactured carbon nanoparticles (MCNs) on human health. A recently published article by members of the Departments of Chemistry and Biotechnology at the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, "Presence of Amorphous Carbon Nanoparticles in Food Caramels", looked at a different aspect of the contoversy, naturally produced carbon nanoparticles. As the authors point out, naturally produced carbon nanoparticles (CNPs) have possibly been present in various types of food for thousands of years and offer the possibility of being used as vehicles for the delivery of medications within the human body.

In their study, Prof. Arun Chattopadhyay and colleagues tested "regular carbohydrate based food caramels, such as bread, jaggery, corn flakes, and biscuits . . . . where the preparation of food maily involves heating the starting ingredients in the absence of water, leading to the formation of caramels", for the presence of CNPs, which were detected. The CNPs were not of a uniform size, as would be expected with MCNs but were of various sizes, "indicating temperature dependent formation". More importantly

These caramels containing CNPs have been consumed by human beings with no know toxicity and thus it can be considered to have no or minimum risk on human health and be used as a safe nanomaterial.

All of these are foods that, as the authors note, "have been consumed by humans for centuries, and thus they can be considered …

The article also discusses the ongoing support of the European Commission (EC) and the UK’s government of research in graphene and how to commercialize it.:

The European Commission is planning to channel €1bn over 10 years into co-ordinated graphene research and commercialisation. The UK government has announced it wants to spend another £50m (€60.7m) to keep the UK at the forefront of graphene research, with the University of Manchester set to host a national institute of graphene research. Commercialisation of graphene by this route could arrive by late 2012.

Converted in US dollars, the EC will be spending $1.278 billion and the UK $78.153 million.…

The New Haven Independent regularly covers the nanotech field, from the latest experiment in using nanoparticles to deliver medications more efficently to discussions of how nanoindustry will affect the national and regional economies. Recently the New Haven Independent posted an edited transcript of an internview with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), a long time advocate of Nanotech research and Nanoindustry in the US Senate and one of the Co-chairs of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus.

Topics covered in the interview ranged from Wyden’s work on reauthorizing the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI):

I very much want reauthorization before the end of the year. I think the Commerce Committee, Chairman [Jay] Rockefeller and others, have felt strongly about this and have watched this sort of bump up against the schedule again and again and again …

If ever there was a bipartisan fit for the Senate right now, and a chance to put us on the right side in terms of taking bolder action in a tough international competition with Europe and Asia, this is the time, and that’s the case I’m going to be making.

I consider the 21st Century bill that I wrote nine years ago one of the most important things I’ve done in my time in public service.

to training a workforce that will be able to fill the good paying jobs that nanoindustry is and will be offering now and in the future.…

Noting that nanotechnology and nanoindustries have emerged during a period when both the power and ability of government agencies, both on the Federal and State levels, to regulate commerce in all of it’s myriad forms has come under debate and "renewed interest in regulatory reform" and is being "replaced by new governance approaches seeking to transform regulation from [an] agency-centric excercise in setting incentives to a collarborative undertaking by actors from multiple segments of society" Professor Timothy F. Malloy of the UCLA School of Law, in a short essay "Soft Law and Nanotechnology: A Functional Perspective", examines"soft law" in the regulation of nanoindustry. "Soft law", in this study, rises from multiple sources, "established standards of behavior and . . . is not legally binding".

Professor Malloy briefly describes four functions of soft law:

1- Precursive function: Laying the groundwork

" The precursive function refers to the use of soft law to lay the groundwork for later hard law instruments. . . . often [taking] the form of voluntary programs aimed at collecting information needed to design conventional hard law programs. . . . Precursive soft law programs may also focus on taking potential regulatory approaches, methodologies or standards for ‘test drives’, hoping to inform or improve the design of the later mandatory program."

2- Normative Function: Leveraging Social Norms

"The normative function refers to the soft law program’s capacity to support the formation and activation of norms of behavior among the targeted population of businesses. . . .Here the program …

Women in Europe for a Common Future, (WECF) founded in the Netherlands in 1994, " is a network of 100 member organizations and individual members who share a common concern to promote a healthy environment for all, strengthen the role of women and promote a gender and rights based approach in environment and sustainable development policy and implementation." Recently, WECF issued a position paper, "Nano: The Great Unknown". WECF takes the position that "Neither the industry nor public authorities have shown adequate leadership and willingness in addressing" the possible toxic effects of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) on humans and the environment.

After briefly surveying European Union (EU) and non-EU regulatory efforts and finding them all lacking, the WECF calls for applying the precautionary principle and the principle of "no data, no market" for all nanomaterials and products containing nanomaterials.

WECF demands that full information about possible risks of nanoparticles as well as access to information on which products contain nanomaterials should be provided to the public, including developing countries) without delay.

The position paper then presents seven additional demands or "actions" by WECF:

1- "WECF demands that manufactured nanomaterials are treated as totally new substances."

2- " WECF demands the application of "no data, no market" – and in the case of REACH, this is to be independent of tonnage. Registration of nanomaterials under the corresponding bulk chemical should by default be prohibited."

3- "Nanosubstances should be subject to a far reaching health assessment (health, environment)."

The task of the Inspectors General of Federal agencies is to examine "all actions of a government agency or military organization. Conducting audits and investigations, either independently or in response to reports of wrongdoing, the OIG ensures that the agency’s operations are in compliance with the law and general established policies of the government. Audits conducted by the OIG are intended to ensure the effectiveness of security procedures, or to discover the possibility of misconduct, waste, fraud, theft, or certain types of criminal activity by individuals or groups related to the agency’s operation."

. . . purpose of this review was to determine how effectively the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is managing the human health and environmental risks of nanomaterials.

The report notes that

EPA has the statutory authority to regulate nanomaterials. . . . EPA can regulate nanomaterials during their manufacture, formulation, distribution in commerce, use, and/or disposal through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) . . . nanomaterials in pesticides through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) . . . . EPA can regulate nanomaterials released into the environment using the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; or the Resource Conservation …

ObservatoryNANO recently published a "Guide to Responsible Nano-Business", a brief report written for an audience of "Medium sized companies involved in the development, processing, production, or trade of nanotechnology-enabled materials, components, or applications".

ObservatoryNANO was created and funded by the then extant European Community (EC), the predecessor of today’sEuropean Union (EU), “to create a European Observatory on Nanotechnologies to present reliable, complete and responsible science-based and economic expert analysis, across different technology sectors, establish dialogue with decision makers and others regarding the benefits and opportunities, balanced against barriers and risks, and allow them to take action to ensure that scientific and technological developments are realized as socio-economic benefits.”

The Guide sets out and briefly discusses four "tools to identify and manage nanotechnology-related priorities":

Tool 1: Set priorities, focusing on the process of framing responsibility measures

Tool 2: Check and complement established internal guidelines and code of conduct

Tool 3: Focus actions, described in the guide as the "strategies and programmes [needed] to be put in place to assure that a guideline is of any practicle use".

Tool 4: Inform transparently, focusing on what to communicate (content), how to communicate to employees of the company, customers and/or the general public, and the choice of communication media, ranging from company websites to product labels.

The Guide has links to "Good Practice Examples", such as BASF‘s Code of Conduct and to sites where more information can be found.

While the Guide to Responsible Nano-Business is not on the same level as …

According to Dr. Suresh’s prepared statement, the 2013 request, "totals $7.373 billion, an increase of $340.0 million (4.8 percent) over the FY 2012 enacted level . . . . [Providing] increased support for core programs in fundemental research and education in all fields of science and engineering".

Dr. Suresh’s prepared statement reflects the reality of budget constraints imposed by the Federal government’s need to reduce the level of the Federal deficit. noting that "As good stewards of the public trust, we have reduced or eliminated lower priority programs . . . . "

Among the programs targeted for reductions in funding are the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSECS). . . .

because the state of research in this area has matured significantly and the research should advance more rapidly in a different, more use-inspired research center program. Several NSECS grants may transition to the Nanosystems Engineering Research Centers (NERCS) as the nanodevices and processes created at graduating NSECSs move to the systems level and potential commercialization. NSF will continue to support eleven NSECs in FY 2013 including the Nanomanufacturing ERC.

This workshop will bring together leaders of regional, state, and local organizations to engage in dialog with the Federal government; economic development groups; investors and entrepreneurs; technology leaders; and scientists and engineers from industry, business, government, and academia. The discussion will address a wide range of resource, organizational, and policy issues impacting RSL nanotechnology initiatives.

Principal themes addressed in the workshop will include:

Current landscape of U.S. RSL nanotechnology initiatives and their health

Current Federal resources available for RSLs

RSL best practices, business models, and opportunities for partnering; and

Role of nanotechnology RSLs in future U.S. economic growth and job creation.

Anyone planning to attend the workshop is required to register, either online, via e-mail ( RSL12@nnco.nano.gov ) or via regular US mail ( RSL 2012 Workshop, c/o NNCO, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Stafford II, Suite 405, Arlington, VA 22230). Registration is on a "first come, first served" basis and runs from today, March 5, 2012 until 5PM April 27, 2012. Those interested in presenting 3-5 minutes of public comments at the meeting should also register at http://www.nano.gov/rslregistration. Written or electronic comments should be submitted by email to RSL12@nnco.nano.gov until April 27, 2012. The workshop …

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP offers this blog for general informational purposes only. The content of this blog is not intended as legal advice for any purpose, and you should not consider it as such advice or as a legal opinion on any matters. The information provided herein is subject to change without notice, and you may not rely upon any such information with regard to a particular matter or set of facts. Further, the use of the blog does not create, and is not intended to create, any attorney-client relationship between you and Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP or any individual lawyer in the firm. No such relationship will be considered to have been formed until we have had an opportunity to resolve any conflict of interest issues and have advised you, in writing, of the nature and scope of the legal services to be provided. Unless we establish an attorney-client relationship with you with regard to the particular matter, we will not treat any information that you may send to us, or submit as a comment to a blog article or entry, as confidential or privileged, and any unsolicited communications may be disclosed to other persons without regard to confidentiality considerations. Use of the blog is at your own risk, and the site is provided without warranty of any kind. We make no warranties of any kind regarding the accuracy or completeness of any information on this blog, and we make no representations regarding whether such information is reliable, up-to-date, or applicable to any particular situation. Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP expressly disclaims all liability for actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this blog, or for any damages resulting from your viewing and use of this blog.